General David Petraeus Critical Thinking

1715 Words7 Pages
Question 1: General David Petraeus’ critical thinking regarding the Afghanistan surge decision was strongly influenced by the critical thinking elements point of view and assumptions while examining the decision primarily through the ethical lens of teleology. Petraeus’ critical thinking point of view based on the concept of counterinsurgency concept and his success in Iraq influenced his critical thinking process. Petraeus’ critical thinking assumption that a counterinsurgency campaign was the only way forward in Afghanistan also impacted his critical thinking. Petraeus examined the Afghanistan surge decision primarily through the ethical lens of teleology which played a significant role in his critical thinking point of view.…show more content…
Kotter stated that, “individual or organizational change at its most basic involves three processes: unfreezing, changing, and refreezing.” In 1943, Eisenhower’s reluctance to change the organization was evident by his unwillingness to address inept Allied commanders or make any organizational structure changes. General Marshall counseled Eisenhower on his complete authority to manage senior U.S. military leaders in his command. By 1944, Eisenhower’s organization of the new Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Force and his prevention of the creation of any separation headquarters between him and the field commanders made it evident that his abilities to manage change had evolved. As Eisenhower started to suspect the Allied Forces as an organization was unsustainable, he established an acting deputy commander in chief for air operations, directed General Patton to assess the problems in Tunisia, and directed Major General Ernest Harmon to assess II Corps. After General Marshall’s visit, it was clear Eisenhower felt empowered to finally make changes he had been reluctant to make that included unfreezing the Allied Forces to make organizational changes and to align resources and priorities to realize his long term vision for Allied Forces. Eisenhower learned quickly that…show more content…
Relationship management is defined as handling others emotions with the leadership tools of persuasion, conflict management, and collaboration. Almost from the beginning, Eisenhower struggled with cultural squabbling among senior leaders within the Allied Forces. Early on, senior British leaders thought Eisenhower was, “…too soft and inexperienced to be in command of a large multinational force.” There were many instances where General Patton and other senior U.S. military leaders thought Eisenhower was too pro-British and was betraying the U.S. Army. By 1944, Eisenhower was described by senior British military leaders as, “…he has a generous and loveable character,” ”just a coordinator, a good mixer, a champion of inter-allied co-operation,” “…completely sincere, straightforward and very modest,” Eisenhower had learned over time to effectively use persuasion, conflict management, and collaboration within the Allied Forces to manage the cultural differences. Eisenhower risked his prior long term relationships with senior U.S. military leaders in order to build relationships and persuade and build relationships with the British senior military leaders and civilian leadership. Once Eisenhower improved his interpretation and management of the strategic
Open Document